ELT Radio Direction Finding is still needed!

[Major Lord]

Here is blurb I clipped from a SAR website. Note that the PLB did not even vector the searchers into visual range of the target, and a helicopter had to find it the old fashioned CAP way!

PLB Helped Save Stranded Hiker in Big Bend National Park



On December 30, the U.S. Air Force notified the park that a personal locator beacon (PLB) signal had been received from a backcountry location within the park. Rangers headed to a backcountry campsite about six miles from the coordinates given by the PLB and found a vehicle registered to a visitor who had a solo hiker permit for that zone of the park. Two rangers then hiked to the approximate PLB coordinates, but were unable to find anyone in that area. They were joined by another team of searchers and a Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) helicopter the following morning. The crew of the helicopter homed in on the 121.5 MHz distress transmission from the PLB within minutes of arriving on scene and soon spotted the hiker, who was waving a space blanket at them. He had "cliffed out" on the side of Elephant Tusk peak, but gave the helicopter crew a thumbs-up signal indicating that he was okay. Although the helicopter was unable to land, the crew directed searchers to the man's location, then ferried rope and climbing equipment to the rangers on scene. They climbed to his location and helped him down. The man told rangers that he'd attempted to climb to the top of Elephant Tusk the day before. He'd cached his backpack, tent and sleeping bag and had made the ascent carrying only a space blanket, food, water, a whistle, an LED light, and a PLB. After topping a 40-foot chimney, he decided to turn back - only to find he couldn't climb down from his location. He spent the night on a 6-foot by 50-foot ledge wrapped in the space blanket, with his PLB tied to a bush to keep it from being blown away by high winds. Overnight temperatures were just below freezing. This incident marks the first time in Big Bend that a PLB has been used by a hiker to call in rescuers. Without the PLB and assistance from the DPS helicopter, it would have been extremely difficult to find and rescue the man in a timely fashion. The PLB probably saved his life

[RiverAux]

Okay, this means that there was a significant amount of daylight when the signal was received (if the rangers had the time to get alerted and hike 6-miles in), the guy stayed out overnight, and then the state spent probably at least a thousand dollars on a helicopter. 

If they would have called CAP our guys could have found them on the first day and vectored the rangers in.  The SAR site should have been critisizing them for not using the proper resources (us) to begin with.  Good thing no one died because of this. 

Yes, yes, I know no one has to use CAP but we were very obviously the right resource for this job.

[DNall]

Easy there. That's state parks & wildlife's ballgame & they're goo at the job. Doubt a CAP ground team could hike in six miles stay the night & climb down that face to do a techical rope rescue, even if it was an easy one. DPS is quite good also & was called in when it was appropriate (and probably cost closer to 10 grand transiting to/from & operating, probably a UH1). They do have cessnas they could have sent also, but then that'd be pretty difficult to ferry climbing gear with huh?

CAP would in fact have launched an aircraft on that right away, but the reason for that is cause it takes so long to scramble a CAP GT & get them transited to a remote location. We put a plane up so we can narrow the search before they get there & hopefully see if there's an emergency we need to send medical/rescue personnel to. It's not any bit of genius, it's just making up for us being spread out & slow.

[arajca]

Multiagency response.

CAP a/c, non-CAP ground team.

Interesting concept, no?

[RiverAux]

Note that I said that CAP could have directed in the park rangers.  I agree that a CAP ground team wouldn't have been appropriate, but CAP would have been the right agency to call to locate the source of the PLB.  I can't believe they just sent rangers out with a GPS unit and thought they would find something, especialy off a PLB signal. 

[Major Lord]

My point was not that we should try to poach missions from the park rangers (who have little to do anyway besides chastise bears that steal picnic baskets...) My point was that PLB's and ELT's cannot be relied on to precisely locate a victim, GPS equipped or otherwise, and that organizations with DF capabilities will more often than not be required to localize the distress transmitters. As to CAP ground teams remaining in the field overnight, I have done so and I assume that many of you have also. I believe that CAP ground teams and A/C would have been well utilized in this type of mission, and may have even kept the victime from having to shelter out doors over night. He lived, but it sounds like he was fairly well prepared.

[DNall]

That's not what I'm saying. What I meant was the park rangers, especially there, are infinitely better prepared to deal with any SAR situation than CAP, that most CAP ground teams would respond very slowly by comparison & could very quickly find themselves in over their heads. That's just saying that CAP ground teams need to be better prepared & watch out for those NIMS-WSAR standards that we need to be looking to for teh future.

I've been on numerous missions w/ CAP aircraft & other GT or vice versa - a whole lot actually w/ CG helo & CAP GT. I've worked missions w/ lots & lots of agencies, & CAP has always been hands down better at signal SaR on both air & ground, and I mean a lot better & that doesn include CG much to their embarassment a few times.

It would be fine to use a CAP aircraft in such a situation, but lets look at this one right quick. Parks & Wildlife get the call cause it's in a park. They are automatically going to send rangers on the ground & won't call for air support unless/until they need it. You got an issue with that, take it up with them, they're better at this than we are. When they call AFRCC for air support, that call (in Texas) has to go to DPS. If they have the right tool in the right place then they're doing it.

In Texas, DPS is in charge of aviation, local sherriff's dept is in charge of missing persons. When a hit comes up to AFRCC they look at where it's at. If it looks like a non-distress ELT then CAP gets called, if it's in a remote area where it MIGHT be real then DPS must be called. They then send a unit (usually a patrol car but could be air) to check the coordnates (they can DF from the air  as well as anyone in CAP). If they don't find anything, then they tell AFRCC there was nothing there & if they want to get rid of it w/ CAP then be their guest don't call back unless there's a real emergency. THEN we can roll out & take care of it. Now, DPS knows our capability quite well, and if they think we are the right tool in the right place or it's going to be a sustained REDCAP type seach then they ask AFRCC to put us on it before it's even offered. Frankly, if DPS wants to dodge mountains in an aircraft of any kind, more power to them. I say good job on the save & keep it up.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, everyone understands local vs state vs federal authority.  The point is that everyone in that chain should understand their own strengths and weaknesses and that of other agencies.  Both the state (when they got the initial call from AFRCC) or the park (when they got called by the state) should have already known that a PLB signal, even with coordinates would not be sufficient to dispatch a ground team on, especially in a remote wilderness area.  Both the state and the park should have realized that the best resource to use to locate the signal location was CAP. 

Now, even if they decided not to use CAP, they should have sent some air unit out first even if it was an expensive helicopter.  Sending the rangers out on a 6-mile hike with just coordinates was almost criminally negligent and shows a major lack of understanding of PLBs that could have cost someone their life.  They could have very easily arrived at the site to find him frozen to death because of their mishandling of this incident.   

[carnold1836]

The real issue here still is response time. Even IF CAP could get an air crew to respond quickly we are dealing with your closest aircraft being in the Midland-Odessa area, 200 miles away. I will bet my next CAP paycheck that TX DPS has their helicopter a whole lot closer than 200 miles, possibly as close as Alpine, less than 100 miles away.

Should the National Park Service have called in for air recon sooner? Maybe, maybe not depending on their current SOP for missing persons. Remember this is the first time a PLB has been used in Big Bend so this is new to them in that park.

Am I disappointed that CAP was not involved in this rescue? A little. Did the NPS do the right thing when they realized they need to get air recon by calling TX DPS instead of CAP? I think so for the reasons mentioned before; response time and aircraft capability to support the GT.

[RiverAux]

Should the National Park Service have called in for air recon sooner? Maybe, maybe not depending on their current SOP for missing persons. Remember this is the first time a PLB has been used in Big Bend so this is new to them in that park.

I suppose I don't blame the park too much, but whatever state agency that first received the call from AFRCC should have been very familiar with PLBs and they should have provided some guidance to the park on this issue.   

Sure, if the DPS helicopter was closer and had the capability (which they obviously did in this case), they may have been the right choice to send in.  However, given the horrible waste of time they had it probably made very little difference. 

[carnold1836]

I suppose I don't blame the park too much, but whatever state agency that first received the call from AFRCC should have been very familiar with PLBs and they should have provided some guidance to the park on this issue.

If you reread the report, it was Big Bend that was notified by AFRCC not the state.

On December 30, the U.S. Air Force notified the park that a personal locator beacon (PLB) signal had been received from a backcountry location within the park.

[Major Lord]

Okay all you cranky old guys out there, I did not intend to start a fight over jurisdiction, only to argue that our DF skills are still needed because next-gen ELT's have been over-sold. and many people have felt that the role of CAP will dwindle because of this. The idea being promoted was that PLB's would bring the rescue crews right  to the victim, and that only extrication would be required. While personally, I would love to have an ELT that vectored my rescuers to my location before I died of exposure, injury, or being devoured by badgers, it is just not there yet. ( Actually Ham radio APRS works much better for locating people, but that's another story...)

On my last sleep-in-the- woods mission, an aircraft crashed in Sequoia National park in winter (snow) The local sheriff would not permit CAP aircraft to overfly the area, considerign them a hazard to navigation and more of a liability than an asset. (it's nice to be loved....) He grudgingly allowed a ground team into the park.

I suppose if there is a fight brewing because of what I have brought up, its that our own people are pissing off other agencies because of unprofessional conduct, appearance, or responses ( I surmise) We have to be able to consistently and professionally provide services if we expect to be treated by other agencies as other than the red-headed step child of SAR. ( Of course, I could add that we should wear purple uniforms with red stripes to distiguish us from the park rangers, but that would start a uniform argument )

[RiverAux]

all you cranky old guys out there,

cranky younger middle-aged guy here!

I suppose if there is a fight brewing because of what I have brought up, its that our own people are pissing off other agencies because of unprofessional conduct, appearance, or responses ( I surmise) We have to be able to consistently and professionally provide services if we expect to be treated by other agencies as other than the red-headed step child of SAR. ( Of course, I could add that we should wear purple uniforms with red stripes to distiguish us from the park

In situations like this I don't think it is active dislike for CAP that is the problem, it is a lack of understanding of what we can do.  With the National Park in particular they may have been hesitant (if they even knew about us) because of very strict rules regarding aviation use in the Dept. of the Interior. 

I think if CAP stays humble most agencies will be happy to use the free resources we provide if we constantly keep up a good relationship with them so that they know what we can do. 

[DNall]

Okay all you cranky old guys out there, I did not intend to start a fight over jurisdiction, only to argue that our DF skills are still needed because next-gen ELT's have been over-sold. and many people have felt that the role of CAP will dwindle because of this. The idea being promoted was that PLB's would bring the rescue crews right  to the victim, and that only extrication would be required. While personally, I would love to have an ELT that vectored my rescuers to my location before I died of exposure, injury, or being devoured by badgers, it is just not there yet. ( Actually Ham radio APRS works much better for locating people, but that's another story...)

On my last sleep-in-the- woods mission, an aircraft crashed in Sequoia National park in winter (snow) The local sheriff would not permit CAP aircraft to overfly the area, considerign them a hazard to navigation and more of a liability than an asset. (it's nice to be loved....) He grudgingly allowed a ground team into the park.

I suppose if there is a fight brewing because of what I have brought up, its that our own people are pissing off other agencies because of unprofessional conduct, appearance, or responses ( I surmise) We have to be able to consistently and professionally provide services if we expect to be treated by other agencies as other than the red-headed step child of SAR. ( Of course, I could add that we should wear purple uniforms with red stripes to distiguish us from the park rangers, but that would start a uniform argument )

I understand what you're saying. No on eis saying DF skills still need to be out there somewhere. No one is saying ALL the missions would go away. What's being said is there's a point at which its not worth 25mil a year, a 100mil air fleet, 35mil comm fleet, 15mil vehicle feelt (just throwing out a number on that one). plus actual expenditure out of the AF O&M budget to reimburse for ops. At some point well north of missions going away other options become more effiecient & you can't hold back the tide anymore just cause we also run a cadet program. Exectly where that point is would be debatable, but it's out there. What we have to do is accept that it's there & evolve to other things as our primary focus. We'll still be here to do the DF work when the call comes, but only if we're also there to do lots of HLS flying & NIMS certified for GT ops so we can go to disasters & on lots more missions to do real work.

[lordmonar]

What we really need to do is get NHQ working harder to help sell us to the local agencies.

How many times have we not got the call because noone knows we exist, or do not understand our capabilities?

How many times has someone made a judgement about CAP based on one Ground Team or one Aircrew that they worked with 10 years ago?

How many wings actuall exercise with other SAR agencies?

One way to do this....is to put PCA to the test and offer our services to local, county and state law enforment in a more expanded role.

By working with them on their normal operations they will be more likely to call us when they are suddenly stuck with a SAR op.

The will know who we are and what we bring to the fight.

The USAF is a dead end in this respect.  With the expanding nature of warfare...there are less non-combatant jobs out there that a bunch of civilians in Cessnas can take on. 

[RiverAux]

The reg you're referring to gives the proceedure for AF to request outside CAP support for large scale operations with reimbursment & insurance coverage. It's not there as an impediment to normal low level interation & assistance.

They've developed a great brochure that explains CAP to everyone, but it is up to the locals to make the connections.

[DNall]

What we really need to do is get NHQ working harder to help sell us to the local agencies.

How many times have we not got the call because noone knows we exist, or do not understand our capabilities?

How many times has someone made a judgement about CAP based on one Ground Team or one Aircrew that they worked with 10 years ago?

How many wings actuall exercise with other SAR agencies?

One way to do this....is to put PCA to the test and offer our services to local, county and state law enforment in a more expanded role.

By working with them on their normal operations they will be more likely to call us when they are suddenly stuck with a SAR op.

The will know who we are and what we bring to the fight.

The USAF is a dead end in this respect.  With the expanding nature of warfare...there are less non-combatant jobs out there that a bunch of civilians in Cessnas can take on. 

I wouldn't say AF is a dead-end. It's true that we can't keep doing what we are & have been doing & still be as useful tot eh aF as we have in the past. So, does that mean we change to completely different things that the AF finds useful, or does it mean we try to keep doing our same old thing for whoever else will pay for it? Remember now, we can't operate w/o the AF money & that's the clencher for me. I don't have a problem with us doing stuff ofr state/local within reason, but I think the primary focus has to be on transformation to something new that we work out with the AF. Strictly the other seems like  amuch more definate dead end to me.

[lordmonar]

I wouldn't say AF is a dead-end. It's true that we can't keep doing what we are & have been doing & still be as useful tot eh aF as we have in the past. So, does that mean we change to completely different things that the AF finds useful, or does it mean we try to keep doing our same old thing for whoever else will pay for it?

I say the USAF is a dead end because there is very little that "we do" that the USAF wants or needs.  Sure we can complete change what we do and how we do it....but would we then be the Civil Air Patrol?  I mean if the Boy Scouts stopped camping and started only doing basket ball and band camps....sure the BSA organisation would still exist but it would not really be the BSA. 

Same for CAP.  We "do" ES, CP and AE.  If we stopped doing that what would we be then?

Remember now, we can't operate w/o the AF money & that's the clencher for me. I don't have a problem with us doing stuff ofr state/local within reason, but I think the primary focus has to be on transformation to something new that we work out with the AF. Strictly the other seems like  amuch more definate dead end to me.

I don't know why you keep saying this?  Why do you think we still can't do what we do with out the Air Force providing us money?

We have several options towards money.

1.  We can hit the states, counties and cities we direcectly support for the funds.
2.  We can hit up the local community/philantropists for the funds.
3.  We can go self funded.
4.  We can go directly to congress and get our own money.
5.  We can go to another Federal Agency/agencies for the money.

We cost a lot of money to the USAF....but we can also cut a lot of fat out of our budget is push came to shove.

I'm not saying it would be easy....but the Red Cross does very well without a lot of federal funding and almost none of it directly from the military.   The Boy Scouts do well too.  I'm not a big fund raiser type person...but CAP as a national organisation could survive a loss of sponsor ship from the USAF.

[DNall]

I say the USAF is a dead end because there is very little that "we do" that the USAF wants or needs.  Sure we can complete change what we do and how we do it....but would we then be the Civil Air Patrol?  I mean if the Boy Scouts stopped camping and started only doing basket ball and band camps....sure the BSA organisation would still exist but it would not really be the BSA. 

Same for CAP.  We "do" ES, CP and AE.  If we stopped doing that what would we be then?

See that seems like over mission identification to me. It seems like you're unwilling to adapt to a changing world cause you love what "we do" so much that anything else iss a threat. Sounds like simple fear of change.

Remember now, we can't operate w/o the AF money & that's the clencher for me. I don't have a problem with us doing stuff ofr state/local within reason, but I think the primary focus has to be on transformation to something new that we work out with the AF. Strictly the other seems like  amuch more definate dead end to me.

I don't know why you keep saying this?  Why do you think we still can't do what we do with out the Air Force providing us money?

We have several options towards money.

1.  We can hit the states, counties and cities we direcectly support for the funds.
2.  We can hit up the local community/philantropists for the funds.
3.  We can go self funded.
4.  We can go directly to congress and get our own money.
5.  We can go to another Federal Agency/agencies for the money.

We cost a lot of money to the USAF....but we can also cut a lot of fat out of our budget is push came to shove.

I'm not saying it would be easy....but the Red Cross does very well without a lot of federal funding and almost none of it directly from the military.   The Boy Scouts do well too.  I'm not a big fund raiser type person...but CAP as a national organisation could survive a loss of sponsor ship from the USAF.

The Red Cross serves a purpose that's fills a critical need of society & they started with a fortune to spend getting donations. CAP fills no such need. Certainly not in the eyes of Congress if the AF isn't interested in us anymore.

The fact is that yes we can do missions for state/local & they can pay the per hour cost, but that's not the real cost, it's subsidized. If you program in the replacement, training, & annual operating costs of all our stuff & divide it among the hours we fly, the price would be a couple grand a mission flying hour while still using volunteer personnel.

There's just flat out a cheaper way to do what "we do" w/o CAP, and that's going to get worse as traditional missions decline. So, we have to evolve to other mission sets. That doesn't mean we quit doing what we do, but it does mean we diversify significantly & put other things first as necessary to make ourselves useful in Auxiliary roles to the AF.

[lordmonar]

See that seems like over mission identification to me. It seems like you're unwilling to adapt to a changing world cause you love what "we do" so much that anything else iss a threat. Sounds like simple fear of change.

I won't say a fear of change....I just don't want it.  I joined CAP to work with Cadets and do ES work.  If CAP changes and ends up doing something else....I have no need/desire to stay with the organization.  Maybe I just find some ex-CAP ES types and form a Boy Scout Explorer Post and keep on working with young Americans and doing ES work.

The Red Cross serves a purpose that's fills a critical need of society & they started with a fortune to spend getting donations. CAP fills no such need. Certainly not in the eyes of Congress if the AF isn't interested in us anymore.

Right on the first part but wrong on the second.  We will still need to fly SAR.  There will still be lost hikers without PLBs, there will still be a need for small town agencies for a cheap air service, there will still be downed aircraft who's ELT's fail.  There are at least other volunteer Aerial SAR organizations I can find on the web and several commercial air surveillance companies with SAR capabilities.  The BSA flies SAR for gosh sakes.  It would not be all that hard to find customers with money....just look at Iowa.  The got $100K a year without even trying all that hard (don't flame me....you guys are working very hard...and doing a good job....it was just a easier that a lot of people think it would be).

The fact is that yes we can do missions for state/local & they can pay the per hour cost, but that's not the real cost, it's subsidized. If you program in the replacement, training, & annual operating costs of all our stuff & divide it among the hours we fly, the price would be a couple grand a mission flying hour while still using volunteer personnel.

So we can the corporate fleet and fly member owned aircraft...kill the comm net and eliminate about 90% of the cool stuff cadet activities.  In stead we take a page from the boy scouts and get local funding for the same programs and extend the time between event.  NCC and IACE ever 4 years, kill all the FAM/orientation course that do not really help with our cadet program or our ES mission.  Consolidate our encampments to regional level to hold down costs and staffing.

And again....what is our annual budget?  $20M-40M?  The Boy Scouts raise that kind of money at the state level!

There's just flat out a cheaper way to do what "we do" w/o CAP, and that's going to get worse as traditional missions decline. So, we have to evolve to other mission sets. That doesn't mean we quit doing what we do, but it does mean we diversify significantly & put other things first as necessary to make ourselves useful in Auxiliary roles to the AF.

I don't understand your reluctance to move away from the USAF?  If the USAF could use us in any other way....they would.  Again I ask you....name one mission that the USAF does right now that we could do cheaper/better than they do that does not involve us crossing the line into combat operations?

[aveighter]

LM you make some valid points.  I think most of the pilots here would agree that without the AF, or another federal agency of similar size and funding, there would effectively cease to be Air in CAP.

As Dennis points out, the advertised cost of flying to the potential customer is highly subsidized by the taxpayors.  The only reason CG Aux is able to muster a handful of member-owned aircraft is because Uncle Sam is underwriting the risks of such flights.  Ask the average owner pilot what his insurance underwriter would do to him if the company knew he was going to fly his aircraft in the same manner and the same circumstances that we do.  The short answer is sky rocketing premiums.  Instant warstopper.  Even so, the most you might have as a fleet would be a sprinkling of aircraft spread throughout the entire nation.  Functionally useless for anything other than the occasional O-flight here and there.

One would also have to consider the regulatory impact on such an operation from the FAA.  Would it be Part 91, would they see it as a Part 135 operation with all that entails?  I sure don't know but it needs to be thrown into the mix for consideration.

Personally I think the future lies in the development of certain types of HLS activities that we are well suited for our capabilities along with our current responsibilities.  I think the AF relationship is the one to nurture but if not that then another federal agency otherwise the organization pretty much ceases to exist.

[DNall]

I won't say a fear of change....I just don't want it.  I joined CAP to work with Cadets and do ES work.  If CAP changes and ends up doing something else....I have no need/desire to stay with the organization.  Maybe I just find some ex-CAP ES types and form a Boy Scout Explorer Post and keep on working with young Americans and doing ES work.

That's the process of change. CAP has dramatically shifted focus in our history & people have not been accepting; they leave & new ones join just as fast. That's change for ya. CAP responds to the changing needs of our country, not the desires of our members, that's why we don't get to vote, cause we'd screw it up.

The Red Cross serves a purpose that's fills a critical need of society & they started with a fortune to spend getting donations. CAP fills no such need. Certainly not in the eyes of Congress if the AF isn't interested in us anymore.

Right on the first part but wrong on the second.  We will still need to fly SAR.  There will still be lost hikers without PLBs, there will still be a need for small town agencies for a cheap air service, there will still be downed aircraft who's ELT's fail.  There are at least other volunteer Aerial SAR organizations I can find on the web and several commercial air surveillance companies with SAR capabilities.  The BSA flies SAR for gosh sakes.  It would not be all that hard to find customers with money....just look at Iowa.  The got $100K a year without even trying all that hard (don't flame me....you guys are working very hard...and doing a good job....it was just a easier that a lot of people think it would be).

Why do WE need to fly SaR? There will be missions, but probably not enough to justify our massive org. The feds do this out of charity. They just have to pay for AFRCC, the mission belongs to states & they're the ones really responsible for paying for it. The only reason they do this is they know not all states can afford to maintain what we provide, so why not just shift those resources to states that can make better use of them anyway? That's not what I want, but you have to have a really good answer for why is HAS to be US. That's the only thing that keep us kicking & strong.

And why the AF you ask? Cause the AF cares for us on a personal level. They see us running a cadet program that helps them, running AE that generates public support, and a long history of service & savings that they owe us for. Move that to DHS for instance, and it's just dollars & cents. And it don't make sense to pay for something that can be done better faster cheaper another way.

Mission hours subsidized by feds

So we can the corporate fleet and fly member owned aircraft...kill the comm net and eliminate about 90% of the cool stuff cadet activities.  In stead we take a page from the boy scouts and get local funding for the same programs and extend the time between event.  NCC and IACE ever 4 years, kill all the FAM/orientation course that do not really help with our cadet program or our ES mission.  Consolidate our encampments to regional level to hold down costs and staffing.

You hear what you're saying? I'm so unwilling to change that I'll try to go it alone, make every efficiency cut I can, and struggle into the future even though I know deep down that's not sustainable.

You can talk about private funds like BSA & Red Cross got. Massive private endowments & foundations, generations of history & service in the public psyche... You tell people what CAP does & they'll respond that those tasks are mostly the responsibility of the government & I already paid my taxes. You just don't have the marketing potential that they do. They are a charity, we are not. 

I don't understand your reluctance to move away from the USAF?  If the USAF could use us in any other way....they would.  Again I ask you....name one mission that the USAF does right now that we could do cheaper/better than they do that does not involve us crossing the line into combat operations?

See above... & I'll add that Air Staff is actively looking for creative ideas on how far they can go with CAP, AWC had a call for papers as well. They're looking for ideas. They have to sell Congress on those ideas too, so they have to be good. You've seen the ideas though...
1) CRBNE: they fly w/ 16 planes when they aren't deployed monitoring Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc. It's a 1AF mission, DHS can supply some of the upfront for sensors, AF pays the flight time. Question is can our people deal with high security missions critical to the safety of the country? Right now the AF doesn't believe it & that relegates us.

2) Cyber-terrorism: 8AF stood up on that. There's a War College paper championed by Air Staff that talks about forming a NEW auxiliary to encompass computer-whiz types & industry partners in support of the AF mission, and CAP is specifically mentioned as the model for that organization. Well that's stupid, why would you not just slide that effort up under the established CAP structure.

3) Augmentation: from professional degrees (medical, engineers, lawyers, etc) supporting directly or indirectly to families & such; to skilled labor on the model CGAux or SDFs use. In both cases they are partnered by location. They allow people to train up to meet the same req's for a job & stand in on wknds or whatever. It's a successful established system that just needs to be tweaked & adopted to the AF. Again, questions about our ability to do their jobs.

Then there's heading down the NIMS road for more traditional ES that gets us real SaR & disaster work, but those standards will massively reshape CAP, especially the GTs.

[lordmonar]

I guess that's the big difference between you and I.

You don't care what we do....so long as we are the USAF-AUX...while I don't care who we are associated with so long as we do ES missions.

I want to fly and do ground team work to help my community and contry.  I am willing to do the mission base stuff and admin work to make that happen. 

I also like working with cadets. 

If the USAF no longer needs/wants us to do this type of work...well I'll go elsewhere.

In the spirit of this thread...someone will always want/need and airborne search capability.  It may or may not be less or more than it is now. 

If the CAP folds or moves onto cyberattack or is just a part time work force for mundane USAF jobs...I'll not stay with CAP and find other activities.

AND this is the factor that you forget when you are discussing future changes to CAP.

CAP is made up primarily of civilians who have an instrest in aviation AND helping our nation/state/city.  If you take away either of those two components...you will lose your membership base and then where would you be?

[DNall]

Like I said, that'd be ashame to lose members like yourself, but CAP was not set
up to be a SaR agency, it was set up to serve the needs of the AF. For a while now one small part of that has been SaR, but that's not who we are. I understand why people are hesitant to move in another direction, but that's what society needs from us now.

A couple generations of Americans trained during the cold war to fight one enemy in one way, then the world changed & a lot of things were obselete all of a sudden. Those people had the choice to accept & adapt, or to make way for a new generation to carry us thru to a new era. That's happened in CAP before at historic juntcures in our history, and we're at another such junture today.

I think it's short-sighted to think our members are here for the mission alone & don't care beyond that. For a whole lot of us it's about the service to our country in a para-military culture & the mission itself is just some task we're assigned. It has been a ncie bonus that teh SaR mission makes you feel warm & fuzzy, and that will still be there, as will cadet programs, but we have to diversify well beyond just those things.

I appreciate your opinion. It's certainly a valid view to hold & I'm sure you're not alone, but for me simple economics decide the issue once & for all. We'll do just as we've always done when the country needs us elsewhere, we'll remember our roots & change direction to serve in ever new ways. That's who we are & what we're about, & always have been.

[RiverAux]

DNALL, SAR has been a major part of CAP since our founding.  The coastal patrol and other major WWII ops get all the press in CAP history books, but back in the regular states CAP members were flying SAR for missing airplanes and other ES work from the beginning.  My state probably had more SAR and ES missions during WWII than we have in the last 4 years (not counting ELT missions). 

[DNall]

So at that point SaR was there, but in the background... then after the war as GA picked up SaR did too & it was applied to civilians as well as the military.... then Cold war got busy & Civil Defense was the national priority, CAP switched lanes, SaR was still there but in the background... CD dropped back SaR was left behind, ELTs came along & dropped the mission load, signal SaR picked up... Disaster had our attention for some time on equal footing w/ SaR (that might have depended on where you lived)... We're at another historical point where national priorities & demand for our serivces are changing again.

We'll still be doing SaR, it's not going away, but it's just a job, not who we are. If the CG decided the CGAux would stop doing safety checks & focus all their energy on environmental monitoring, you'd salute (maybe not) and go do what they needed done right? Would some members that just lived boater safety be all up in arms & quit, sure but who cares, close ranks, recruit, & march on. You do what the country needs done, and what the country needs done today is different than a couple years ago. That means we have to adapt, show them how we can still be useful in other ways & move out briskly to aid the military in time of war & domestic threat.

[lordmonar]

DNALL, SAR has been a major part of CAP since our founding.  The coastal patrol and other major WWII ops get all the press in CAP history books, but back in the regular states CAP members were flying SAR for missing airplanes and other ES work from the beginning.  My state probably had more SAR and ES missions during WWII than we have in the last 4 years (not counting ELT missions). 

Don't bother him with facts...he's on a roll!

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't hesitate to say that SAR and DR work was the primary use of CAP during WWII.  A very close second (and very possibly co-equal) was the cadet program of the time which had a high focus on flight training and getting youths ready to join the military. 

Only about 4500 CAP members participated in coastal patrol, target towing, and the other high profile missions, but there were well over 100,000 members at any one time after it got going during the war. 

This probably isn't a bad analogy for what is going on now in CAP.  A very tiny number of CAP members are participating in the high-profile homeland security missions while most actual CAP missions still relate to old fashioned typical missions. 

[IronRangerMN]

well, kinda back on subject a little.....
our guys could have made 6 mike hike to the location the same time or less than rangers possible, used DF equipment and found them no problem w/o air support, and "created" a LZ for a helo to get in and medivac the guy, but we have no mountain climbing training(Minnesota) so we would not have been able to recover him off the cliff if it was extreme.

We would have also had a super slow reaction time if we were that 200 mikes away like said ealier in the post. But we could stay fielded overnight no problem.

But if any GT was that far away, id say that be a no-go for any team.

[DNall]

well, kinda back on subject a little.....
our guys could have made 6 mike hike to the location the same time or less than rangers possible, used DF equipment and found them no problem w/o air support, and "created" a LZ for a helo to get in and medivac the guy, but we have no mountain climbing training(Minnesota) so we would not have been able to recover him off the cliff if it was extreme.

We would have also had a super slow reaction time if we were that 200 mikes away like said ealier in the post. But we could stay fielded overnight no problem.

But if any GT was that far away, id say that be a no-go for any team.

I don't know about your team, but there's a lot of out of shape folks walking around claiming to be GTM/Ls. Fact is the right resource was used for the job & most CAP GTs couldn't have done that work, and likely would have been a liability if they tagged along with teh park rangers. I realize there are some other individuals or teams that are better than that, but you call for resources & never know what is going to show up at your mission base. You want more missions, go start units in those big geographic gaps, and get all your people WSAR qual'd & listed with the state & feds.

[IronRangerMN]

We could have done it but it was definatly done right the way that it was.

[SARPilotNY]

SAR forces have been spoiled by the SARSAT for years and when it falls from the skies soon, we will be back to where we were thirty years ago! Almost.

A plane crashes in the remote woods of wherever.  His 406 beacon goes off but the antenna is inverted or covered so a 406 GPS fix is not  given.  The SARSAT is able to give a generalized fix only for 24 hours when it shuts down to save power for the low powered 121.5 homing signal.  The closest road or highpoint is miles away.  Hope the weather is good to get rescuers in before the homing signal dies.  My experience is the 121.5 signal is good for less than 1/2 mile and more like 1/4 mile over flat terrain.  I doubt alot of our folks have enough confidence in the SARSAT to hike several miles to where the SARSAT thinks it is only to hope to hear the homing signal.

[jeders]

all you cranky old guys out there,

cranky younger middle-aged guy here!

Cranky college aged guy.

I think that, for a short time anyway, we'll have more missions than ever after the 406 mandate date. Why you ask.

1. Lots of ELTs being dropped/thrown on benches and accidentally going off.

2. Lots of small airport mechanics taking them and having fun with big brother (It's happened here in Texas)

3. Drug runners getting their hands on old ELTs and placing them on drug bales (Also has already happened in Texas)

4. When the 406 become more wide spred there will be more park rangers and local/state police driving to an area, not finding anything, and going home.

As far as the fight about the waste of time, the problem in Texas, at least out here in West Texas, has nothing to do with who has assets closest. The problem is that DPS wants more funding to get more cool stuff, but they can only get that funding if they're the ones making the rescues. So they don't call CAP until it's been about 24 hours and they've failed, regardless of distress or non distress. So there is definately some reason for some of us to not like the way the DPS handles some things out here.

That being said, if DPS is closer, then they should send up the first air assets.

[sardak]

I think that, for a short time anyway, we'll have more missions than ever after the 406 mandate date.

There is no date mandated for 406 MHz ELTs.  The Sarsat system stops listening to 121.5/243.0 on February 1, 2009.  There is no requirement to have 406 MHz ELTs by that date or any other date.
121.5 MHz EPIRBs became illegal on January 1, 2007.

1. Lots of ELTs being dropped/thrown on benches and accidentally going off.
2. Lots of small airport mechanics taking them and having fun with big brother (It's happened here in Texas)
3. Drug runners getting their hands on old ELTs and placing them on drug bales(Also has already happened in Texas)

While there may be a increase for those reasons, these types of events, including use by drug runners, have been happening for years.

4. When the 406 become more wide spred there will be more park rangers and local/state police driving to an area, not finding anything, and going home.

Probably true, unfortunately, due to the increasing number of PLBs.

That being said, if DPS is closer, then they should send up the first air assets.

Absolutely, and appropriate ground resources, too.  We need to be victim oriented, not concerned with turf battles, which means the quickest resource should be dispatched, but not to the exclusion of others.  Total mission duration needs to be considered. Keeping in mind the four phases of a SAR operation (LAST - Locate Access Stabilize Transport), the first arriving resource may not be the best one to execute the complete mission.  A later arriving resource may be able to get the subject to safety quicker.

As for the future, here are numbers presented by the NOAA Sarsat office at the state SAR coordinators meeting in May.
Projected number of beacons
Year 2010
121.5 ELTs  268,000
406 ELTs 80,000
----------------
121.5 EPIRBs 5,000 (though illegal, there will still be some in use)
406 EPIRBs 190,000
----------------
PLBs (all 406) 65,000

Year 2015
121.5 ELTs 218,000
406 ELTs 152,000
--------------
121.5 EPIRBs 1,500
406 EPIRBs 222,000
---------------
PLBs 100,000

Mike

[RiverAux]

Interesting that they don't expect much decline in the use of 121.5 ELTs by 2015 even though the satellite won't be listening for them anymore. 

[sardak]

The assumption is that most aircraft owners won't replace a 121.5 ELT with a 406 one because it's not required.  However, owners and pilots are buying PLBs to gain the advantages of the 406 beacons and because they're a lot cheaper.  PLB registrations have an entry for "Type" (of usage) with the choices being aircraft, boat, land vehicle, none and other.  The second highest response is "aircraft."  The highest response is "boat."

Another interesting stat is that only 40% of the registered ELTs, about 25% of EPIRBs and 95% of PLBs have GPS capability.

Mike

[SARPilotNY]

I priced placing a new 406 beacon to replace my 121.5 in my aircraft.  Almost 4K.  Why do it?  I can buy a 406 PLB that will do way more for way less.
121.5 will be fine so my wife can collect on my life insurance policy,
406 is great for getting me to the hospital if I am alive.
I just hope I can get to it and I am well enough to turn it on.
I still fly with a SAT Phone, best of all worlds.  All this is fine if I don't crash in the Rockies where a helicopter can't fly in the winter.